Subject: GASP!!!

From: "Hattig, Myron" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 4 Dec 1998 10:09:59 -0800

Hi,

Given there is no consensus, IMHO, we should:
1) Leave ARP, MCAP, and link fragmentation as it is
in the IP/1394 spec
2) define the GASP header in the bridging WG
3) In the IP/1394 spec, add a reference to the GASP
header being defined by the bridging WG with comments
that some fields in the future GASP header may replace
the functionality provided by the source node_id
field of the ARP packet, the signature field of the
link fragment, and the busID/NodeID fields of the MCAP
header.
4) IP/1394 WG members participate in the bridging WG
to help map the replacement of IP/1394 header fields
to fields in the GASP header

I came to this opinion because the bridging WG
should define the GASP header, not the IP/1394 WG.
IP/1394 WG members can participate in the bridging
WG to help define GASP, but the decisions must
be made in the bridging WG. The best the IP/1394
spec can do is make a reference to the bridging
spec. Overtime, some condensation of headers may
occur much like ethernet headers have condensed
from four or five flavors of IEEE 802.[123] with
or without LLC/SNAP to just [src, dst, EtherType].
Like Ethernet, it will take time (and success) for
IP/1394 to achieve what the market actually
needs. However, the sooner we get past this log-jam
(now in it's third month ;-( ) the sooner we can
start to learn what the market actually needs.

-myron